Can Suppliers Refuse to Exchange Faulty Goods insisting they are first returned and re-purchased?

johnggold

I recently bought two pairs of expensive shoes from John Lewis. One pair was perfect, and the other had physical defects.

With these shoes came a Returns document. My wife did not want to return them. She wanted them replaced. There was nothing to handle this, so I called Customer Service, and was advised to complete a claims form online, with photographic evidence, and they would be replaced.

I then received an email stating that because I used a Guest account, John Lewis would not replace the shoes until I had completed a full Account Application, as they insisted on first refunding the money, then taking payment for a new pair.

A replacement does not require any money to change hands, and this would also mean that my financial details would be permanently stored by John Lewis.

There then followed a series of emails, in which it established that they would not budge,or listen to reason.

I am well capable of dealing with Customer service departments, and my well tried system forced them very reluctantly to replace the shoes, so that is now sorted.

However, it raises the question as to whether John Lewis and probably others are within their rights to refuse to.exchange faulty goods without creating an additional financial transaction.
and placing the onus on the consumer to do all the work.


 




 


 

davidmcn

They have the option of refunding, yes.

powerful_Rogue

johnggold said:

I recently bought two pairs of expensive shoes from John Lewis. One pair was perfect, and the other had physical defects.

With these shoes came a Returns document. My wife did not want to return them. She wanted them replaced. There was nothing to handle this, so I called Customer Service, and was advised to complete a claims form online, with photographic evidence, and they would be replaced.

I then received an email stating that because I used a Guest account, John Lewis would not replace the shoes until I had completed a full Account Application, as they insisted on first refunding the money, then taking payment for a new pair.

A replacement does not require any money to change hands, and this would also mean that my financial details would be permanently stored by John Lewis.

There then followed a series of emails, in which it established that they would not budge,or listen to reason.

I am well capable of dealing with Customer service departments, and my well tried system forced them very reluctantly to replace the shoes, so that is now sorted.

However, it raises the question as to whether John Lewis and probably others are within their rights to refuse to.exchange faulty goods without creating an additional financial transaction.
and placing the onus on the consumer to do all the work.


 




 


 

Absoutley. Repair, refund or replace - The choice is the retailers.

pbartlett

and funnily enough i bought a few bottles of wine from local.supermarket recently during their 25% off week - one i opened and it didnt taste right - i like that wine and took it back.for a replacement - because price had now gone up again i could only get a refund i was not allowed a replacement.

David713

pbartlett said:

and funnily enough i bought a few bottles of wine from local.supermarket recently during their 25% off week - one i opened and it didnt taste right - i like that wine and took it back.for a replacement - because price had now gone up again i could only get a refund i was not allowed a replacement.

Which is perfectly acceptable and legal under UK consumer law.

pbartlett

exactly ..

Manxman_in_exile

johnggold said:

...

I am well capable of dealing with Customer service departments, and my well tried system forced them very reluctantly to replace the shoes, so that is now sorted.

...
 

Out of interest, how does it work?

powerful_Rogue

johnggold said:

The reason why some people can get refunds is that they know that the company response will always be financially or personally motivated.

If the company is certain that to continue disputing will cost more than accepting then they will refund without accepting liability.

This is how I have very successfully persuaded companies that it is in their best interests to refund.

To do this, you need to completely ignore support call centres and find out where the real head office is - usually located a long way away.

If in doubt, google search for any legal actions involving the company. This usually shows up the real Head Office address.

Basically being a PITA then.

visidigi

powerful_Rogue said:

johnggold said:

The reason why some people can get refunds is that they know that the company response will always be financially or personally motivated.

If the company is certain that to continue disputing will cost more than accepting then they will refund without accepting liability.

This is how I have very successfully persuaded companies that it is in their best interests to refund.

To do this, you need to completely ignore support call centres and find out where the real head office is - usually located a long way away.

If in doubt, google search for any legal actions involving the company. This usually shows up the real Head Office address.

Basically being a PITA then.

Thanks for quoting it - it seems to have been 'tried and tested' and evaporated.

Companies don't have to transact with you if you are more trouble than you're worth (and transacting with a human in Customer service is expensive to companies, doing so with 'head office' is more so).

So while this 'process' might yield results, sooner or later you'll be refused business with people you might like to buy from...

Littlestars_2

visidigi said:

powerful_Rogue said:

johnggold said:

The reason why some people can get refunds is that they know that the company response will always be financially or personally motivated.

If the company is certain that to continue disputing will cost more than accepting then they will refund without accepting liability.

This is how I have very successfully persuaded companies that it is in their best interests to refund.

To do this, you need to completely ignore support call centres and find out where the real head office is - usually located a long way away.

If in doubt, google search for any legal actions involving the company. This usually shows up the real Head Office address.

Basically being a PITA then.

Thanks for quoting it - it seems to have been 'tried and tested' and evaporated.

Companies don't have to transact with you if you are more trouble than you're worth (and transacting with a human in Customer service is expensive to companies, doing so with 'head office' is more so).

So while this 'process' might yield results, sooner or later you'll be refused business with people you might like to buy from...

What most people do not realise is "head office" do not deal with complaints, it gets passed to the same customer service team to deal with, just that this time they can use a fancier title than customer service advisor so it looks more official but they get paid no more for doing so.

Same that when most people ask to speak to managers you probably don't get a manager, you get the same customer service team again with a fancier title. When I worked in that sector the majority of managers wouldn't even take calls and if they did they knew very little asking agents to do the leg work.

In terms of the original poster they probably moaned enough that they went around it a way they shouldn't to get the op to go away. The fact is as long as they offer a refund they have met their legal responsibility.

mattyprice4004

They just folded to get rid of you, what they wanted to do was perfectly fine.